DOCSLIB.ORG

Trope Theory, Resemblance, and Russell's Regress

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Trope Theory, Resemblance, and Russell's Regress Trope Theory, Resemblance, and Russell's Regress Florian Boge 12.07.2012 Structure • Introduction – what are tropes? – Nominalism about universals – Bundle theory – A refinement: nucleus theory • Similarity relations – A trope theoretical measure for relative resemblance • The resemblance regress – a fundamental problem for trope theory – Is it vicious? – Similarity as internal – A cognitivist approach as a possible solution • Perfect resemblance defined What are tropes? • Definition: Tropes are the particular properties (property instances) of a given concrete entity (cf. Campbell 1990, 18). They are abstract particulars. – Relatons = polyadic tropes – Qualitons = monadic tropes (cf. Bacon 2008, 2) • An entity is called abstract (in this context) iff. it is a part of some other entity, which can only be separated in thought (cf. Rojek 2008, 361). • Particulars (indviduals) = entities which only exist in one place at one time (interval) Spacio-temproal location as an important criterion for individuality according to trope theory: “[O]ur abstract particulars are particulars because they have a local habitation, even if no name. They exist as individuals at unique place- times.” (Campbell 1990, 3) What are tropes? • Examples: – The particular shape of a given chair – Bill Clinton‟s eloquence – „This redness‟, in contrast to „redness‟ in general • Supposed to provide an alternative to realism about universals Trope theory is a form of nominalism about universals Needs to explain our use of general terms Should be able to explain every day life‟s entities such as things, their appearance, their relations etc. Nominalism about universals • Nominalism about universals = attempt to provide an explanation of general terms (i.e. terms for types, properties, relations etc.) without appeal to universals • Universals = entities that are multiply exemplified i.e. exist in more than one place at the same time • Different kinds of nominalism: – Predicate nominalism: different entities just fall under the same predicate (cf. Armstrong 1978,13) highly unsatisfactory – Class nominalism: different entities are part of the same class; the predicate refers to the whole class Faces some great difficulties, e. g. coextension problem („cordate‟ and „renate‟), aggregate problem (aggregate of soldiers = aggregate of armies) Resemblance nominalism: different entities resemble each other and constitute resemblance classes (which are the denotation of a predicate) Most promising, but also has to face the coextension problem (cf. Schurz 1995, 100) Nominalism about universals • Trope theory as a form of resemblance nominalism which ipso facto solves some of the problems of classical similarity nominalism: – No coextension problem; class of resembling F-tropes distinct (even disjunct) from the class of resembling G-tropes, even if all F- and G- tropes always occur in the same classical individuals – Makes it easier to define relative resemblance of classical individuals (resemblance w.r.t. one property instead of overall resemblance) and degrees of resemblance in virtue of perfectly resembling tropes (definition will be given later) Bundle theory • Classical individuals = concrete entities we encounter in everyday life, „things‟ • How can trope theory account for those? • One classical, intuitive approach: substrata, „bare particulars‟, that bear tropes Difficulties: • „Ontological extra‟ (dispensable) • Relation of „bearing‟ must be second order trope that needs explanation: how can tropeless substratum have the property (trope) of being a bearer? (Cf. Simons 1994, 567) • Alternative: bundle theory – Tropes (always - ?) appear in bundles – Tropes in a bundle are compresent Several tropes are compresent at a time (interval) iff. they occupy the same space at that time (interval) (cf. Russell 1948, 260) Can also be interpreted to introduce a cognitive dimension; several tropes are percieved as one complex A refinement: nucleus theory • Problem: how can bundle theory account for the distinction between essential and accidental properties (i.e. tropes)? • Solution: There is a nucleus of tropes in every bundle, where any trope of the nucleus cannot exist without any of the other tropes (cf. Simons 1994, 567). One sided dependence of accidental tropes on the existence of the nucleus • Phenomenological conception of „essential‟ and „accidental‟ (cf. Gallagher and Zahavi 2008, 27). • Alternative interpretation: – Some tropes are essentially compresent: basic tropes (tropes that constitute the basic physical entities). – The tropes of several nuclei can be accidentally compresent (constitute bigger entities together) and create supervenient tropes; introduce degrees of compresence. – Many Relatons may be defined in terms of compresence (degree of compresence, change in the degree of compresence…) Less anthropocentric Similarity relations • General properties are taken to be resemblance classes of tropes – what is resemblance? – Resemblance is a similarity relation. – Technical definition: A similarity relation is a symmetric and reflexive relation:xy(Sxy Syx) x(Sxx) (cf. Bacon 2008, 4) – Resemblance as the nominalistic pendant to qualitative identity (having the same property) – Perfect resemblance is the highest degree of resemblance; it is, arguably, also transitive: xyz(Rxy Ryz Rxz) – Perfect resemblance, thus, is an equivalence relation, which induces a partition on a given Domain D. – Relative resemblance of classical individuals can be modeled in terms of perfectly resembling basic tropes; a measure for resemblance in some respect can be defined. – Compresence can – logically – be taken to be a similarity relation (similarity w.r.t. spacio-temporal location). A trope theoretical measure for relative resemblance • Motivation: „[A]n orangeness trope might be like the color of a given tomato, which in turn was like a bunch of redness tropes. The tomato‟s color might be both an orangeness and a redness. Yet the orangeness trope might not be like any of the other redness tropes. I see no compelling reason to exclude such possibilities a priori.” (Bacon 1995, 15) Argument for the non-transitivity of resemblance – plausible? Can be resolved by introducing degrees of similarity (resemblance); take resemblance in general to be fuzzy: „[A] similarity relation, S, is a fuzzy relation which is reflexive, symmetric, and transitive. Thus, let x, y be elements of a set X and s(x, y) denote the grade of membership of the ordered pair (x, y) in S. Then S is a similarity relation in X if and only if, for all x, y, z in X, (x, x) = 1 s (reflexivity), s(x, y) = s(y, x) (symmetry), and s(x, z) y (s(x, y) s(y, z)) (transitivity), where and denote max and min, respectively.” (Zadeh 1971, 177) • We need y because is a real-valued function into the closed interval [0,1]. A trope theoretical measure for relative resemblance • If we assume that the tropes of classical individuals supervene on the basic tropes, we can define the following measure for (relative) resemblance: Let x, y be variables for the elements of the set I of classical individuals and F any relation of relative resemblance on I (e.g. color resemblance). Further, let B be the set of basic tropes and ti, tj, with i, jIN , be variables for the elements of B. Let T(x) be the set of basic tropes compresent in x, i.e. t1,t2T(x): Kt1t2, where K is the relation of compresence on B. Let N = |{<ti, tj>BF² : tiT(x), tjT(y)}| where BFB is the set of basic F-tropes (the set of basic tropes on which the relata of F – e.g. color-tropes – supervene). Let P be the relation of perfect resemblance on BF. Then: F(x, y) = |{<ti, tj>P: tiT(x)BF and tjT(y)BF}| / N – Relates the idea of degrees of resemblance to trope theory – Reduces the need for a general definition of resemblance to the need for a definition of perfect resemblance – Bears some explanatory value for the question of how degrees of resemblance come into existence The resemblance regress • Resemblance relations must either consist relatons (particular resemblances; 2nd order tropes) or the universal of resemblance must be accepted. • Problem: – If we accept a universal at the basis of our ontology, trope theory does not give us a complete form of nominalism. – However, if we take resemblances themselves to be individuals, the regress problem arises: • Let r1 be the particular resemblance between two tropes a and b and r2 the particular resemblance between two tropes c and d • Now, for the r1 and r2 both to be resemblances, there must be another, higher order trope r1,2 which makes them both resemblances (since this is our criterion for membership in a resemblance class). • Let, in general, ri,j be the resemblance between two resemblances ri and rj • For any two ri,j and rk,n, we now need a r(i,j),(k,n) for them to be resemblances – and so forth for any two higher order resemblances, ad infinitum. Is it vicious? • Some philosophers have argued, that there are „virtuous‟ regresses, e.g.: – The truth regress (resulting from the substitution of the truth conditions of a true sentence into Tarskis T-scheme) – The regress of successor numbers, resulting from the axioms of peano arithmetic (cf. Nolan 2001, 523-524) • The regress of resemblances could be such a regress (cf. Campbell 1990, 35 ff.) Campbell: more formality and less substance on every level – what does that even mean? Daly (1994, 256-257): applies to any regress. We need a better argument. Resemblance as internal • Some philosophers have argued that resemblance is an internal relation (cf. Armstrong 1989, pp. 43), i.e.: – Given the existence two resembling entities (tropes) a and b, they must resemble one another (they resemble one another in every possible world, in which they exist). Tropes necessitate their resemblance Resemblance supervenes on tropes • Question: Is resemblance ontologically reducible to the resembling entities? (cf. Armstrong 1989, 56) Problem: If ra,b is the resemblance of a and b and it is „nothing besides a and b‟ then it should hold that ra,b = a and ra,b = b. But then a = b.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • RN and Russell's Regress
    Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 2001, 79 (3), pp. 395-408. RESEMBLANCE NOMINALISM AND RUSSELL’S REGRESS Gonzalo Rodriguez-Pereyra University of Edinburgh In a famous passage Bertrand Russell argued that any attempt, like that of Resemblance Nominalism, to get rid of universals in favour of resemblances fails [20, p. 48]. More precisely, Russell thought that no resemblance theory could avoid postulating a universal of resemblance without falling into a vicious infinite regress. And he added that admitting a universal of resemblance made it pointless to avoid other universals. In this paper I shall defend Resemblance Nominalism, a theory which gets rid of universals in terms of resemblances, from both of Russell’s points by arguing (a) Resemblance Nominalism can avoid the postulation of a universal of resemblance without falling into a vicious infinite regress (§V) and (b) even if Resemblance Nominalism had to admit a universal of resemblance, this would not make it pointless to avoid the postulation of other universals (§VI). But before doing so I shall briefly introduce Resemblance Nominalism (§I) and Russell’s regress (§II), and then I shall consider some failed arguments and strategies against the regress (§§III−IV). I. Resemblance Nominalism. Resemblance Nominalism is a solution to the Problem of Universals. I have argued elsewhere that the Problem of Universals, strictly understood, is what I call the Many over One, rather than the traditional One over Many [17, pp. 269-70]. The Many over One is the problem of explaining how a single particular can have a multiplicity of properties [17, pp. 269-70]. Thus solutions to the Problem of Universals account for what it is for any thing or particular a to have properties F, G, H etc.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Bundles of Tropes and Ontological Dependence
    Nuclear Bundles of Tropes and Ontological Dependence JOSÉ TOMÁS ALVARADO OST DEFENDERS OF TROPE METAPHYSICS have maintained that particular objects should be reduced to bundles of tropes. Part of the attraction M of a trope metaphysic is the work that tropes can do for understanding the nature of both particulars and universals. On one hand, what we call ‘universals’ can be conceived as resemblance classes of tropes. On the other hand, particular objects are nothing but pluralities of tropes satisfying certain conditions (cf. for example, Williams 1953a, 1953b; Campbell 1981, 1990; Maurin 2002; Ehring 2011). But, what are exactly those conditions that make a plurality of tropes a particular object? It has not been easy to fill in the details of a trope theory of objects and, then, it is not surprising that a variety of different proposals have been put to the fore. Some have said that objects can be understood as mereological fusions of compresent tropes. Some have said that objects can be understood as pluralities of tropes that happen to be «co– instantiated». Some have said that «co–instantiation» is just a primitive fundamental ontological fact. Some have said that it is a relational trope, albeit an especial one. For example, a relational trope that is essentially a relation between the tropes that compose an object, although the related tropes are independent from each other (cf. Maurin 2002, pp. 164–166). For others the co–instantiation trope is a relational trope that happens to relate all the tropes composing an object, including itself (cf. Ehring 2011, pp.
    [Show full text]
  • Metaphysics: a Contemporary Introduction: Third Edition
    Metaphysics Metaphysics: A contemporary introduction is for students who have already done an introductory philosophy course. Michael J. Loux provides a fresh look at the central topics in metaphysics, making this essential reading for any student of the subject. This third edition is revised and updated and includes two new chapters on Time and Causation. Topics addressed include: • the problem of universals • the nature of abstract entities • the problem of individuation • the nature of modality • identity through time • the nature of time • the Realism/anti-Realism debate Wherever possible, Michael J. Loux relates contemporary views to their classical sources in the history of philosophy. As an experienced teacher of philosophy and an important contributor to recent debates, Loux is uniquely qualified to write this book. The third edition retains the student-friendly features of previous editions: • chapter overviews summarizing the main topics of study • examples to clarify difficult concepts • annotated further reading at the end of each chapter • endnotes and a full bibliography Michael J. Loux is Shuster Professor of Philosophy at the University of Notre Dame. He is also editor of Metaphysics: Contemporary Readings, designed to accompany this textbook and also published by Routledge. His book Substance and Attribute (1978) is one of the major metaphysics books of recent years. Routledge Contemporary Introductions to Philosophy Series editor: Paul K. Moser Loyola University of Chicago This innovative, well-structured series is for students who have already done an introductory course in philosophy. Each book introduces a core general subject in contemporary philosophy and offers students an access- ible but substantial transition from introductory to higher-level college work in that subject.
    [Show full text]
  • Armstrong and Tropes Proof.Pdf
    Peter Simons Armstrong and Tropes “So the philosophy of tropes is riding high.” David Armstrong, U 125.¹ Appreciation 5 In 1974, while a graduate student at the University of Manchester, I rst heard David Armstrong give a talk. It was on various regress arguments against nominalism, later published in NR. At that time I was not a nominalist and the arguments seemed sound. What impressed me much more forcibly however was Armstrong’s refreshing direct- ness in addressing metaphysical issues. At that time, metaphysics was largely still 10 under the domination of the philosophy of language, and arguments about the na- ture of universals tended to go via consideration of predicates, semantics and so on. Armstrong’s rejection of bad old arguments from meaning cut through that tangle like Alexander’s sword through the Gordian knot, and we were left face to face with the metaphysical question itself: are there universals, or are there not? Just as in the phe- 15 nomenological tradition Roman Ingarden had broken away from Husserl’s transcen- dental anxietizing, so in the analytical tradition Armstrong broke away from Straw- son’s Aristotelian-Kantian linguistic metaphysics-lite and Quine’s Carnapian insou- ciance as to ultimates. The idea that metaphysics might regain her status as the Queen of Philosophy was implanted, and has stayed with me ever since. I owe David a great 20 intellectual debt for making this clear by living example. The next time I saw David was in 1990 at Zinal, by which time we and things had both moved on, and this essay is about some of those things.
    [Show full text]
  • William Ockham and Trope Nominalism
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Faculty Publications, Classics and Religious Studies Department Classics and Religious Studies 1998 William Ockham and Trope Nominalism Stephen E. Lahey University of Nebraska-Lincoln, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/classicsfacpub Part of the Classics Commons Lahey, Stephen E., "William Ockham and Trope Nominalism" (1998). Faculty Publications, Classics and Religious Studies Department. 85. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/classicsfacpub/85 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Classics and Religious Studies at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications, Classics and Religious Studies Department by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. William Ockhsun and Trope Nominalism Can we take a medieval metaphysician out of his scholastic robes and force him into a metaphysical apparatus as seemingly foreign to him as a tuxedo might be? I believe that the terminological and conceptual differences that appear to prevent this can be overcome in many cases, and that one case most amenable to this project is the medieval problem of universals. After all, the problem for the medieval is, at base, the same as it is for contemporary philosophers, as for Plato: How do we account, ontologically, for many tokens of the same type? If one object has the property x and another, distinct object has the "same" property x, how to explain the apparent "samenessw of the property x? Is x one property or two? I will argue that William Ockharn's ontology, when considered in light of some contemporary philosophical thought, is remarkably fresh and vital, able seriously to be con- sidered as a tenable position, so long as we are clear about what Ockham is saying.
    [Show full text]
  • The Racism of Philosophy's Fear of Cultural Relativism
    Journal of World Philosophies Articles/99 The Racism of Philosophy’s Fear of Cultural Relativism∗ _________________________________________ SHUCHEN XIANG Institute of Foreign Philosophy, Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies, Peking University, China ([email protected]) By looking at a canonical article representing academic philosophy’s orthodox view against cultural relativism, James Rachels’ “The Challenge of Cultural Relativism,” this paper argues that current mainstream western academic philosophy’s fear of cultural relativism is premised on a fear of the racial Other. The examples that Rachels marshals against cultural relativism default to the persistent, ubiquitous, and age-old stereotypes about the savage/barbarian Other that have dominated the history of western engagement with the non-western world. What academic philosophy fears about cultural relativism, it is argued, is the barbarians of the western imagination and not fellow human beings. The same structure that informs fears of cultural relativism, whereby people with different customs are reduced to the barbarian/savage of the western imagination, can be seen in the genesis of international law which arose as a justification for the domination of the Amerindian (parsed as “barbarians”). It is argued that implicit in arguments against cultural relativism is the preservation of the same right to dominate the Other. Finally, it is argued that the appeal of the fear of cultural relativism is that, in directing moral outrage at others, one can avoid reflecting on the failures of one’s own cultural tradition. Key words: racism; barbarian; moral universalism; cultural relativism; James Rachels; Amerindian; international law 1 Introduction This paper will illustrate how the structure of mainstream western philosophy’s fear of cultural relativism can be understood as a continuation of the pervasive racist beliefs that have dominated much of western history.
    [Show full text]
  • G. E. MOORE on CONCEPTS and JUDGMENT* G. E. Moore Sobre Conceptos Y Juicio
    DOI: 10.36446/af.2021.357 G. E. MOORE ON CONCEPTS AND JUDGMENT* G. E. Moore sobre conceptos y juicio SEBASTIÁN BRICEÑO a https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3040-4869 [email protected] a Universidad de Santiago de Chile, Santiago, Chile Abstract In “The Nature of Judgment” (1899), G. E. Moore defends the strange thesis according to which “[i]t seems necessary… to regard the world as formed of concepts”. Philosophers have offered distinct understandings of this proposal, in particular of what Moorean concepts really are. In this article I discuss and reject three of them: one, according to which Moorean concepts are universals within the framework of a bundle theory of concrete particulars (Nelson, 1962; Baldwin, 1990); a second one, according to which Moorean concepts are particulars within a mereological framework of analysis (Bell, 1999); and a third one, according to which Moorean concepts are a sui generis category, resulting from his alleged rejection of the substance (particular)/attribute (universal) distinction (MacBride, 2018). I end by defending my own understanding, which highlights the openly Platonic stance of the young G. E. Moore. Key words: Concepts; Judgment; Proposition; Abstract; Particular; Universal; Substance. Resumen En “The Nature of Judgment” (1899), G. E. Moore defiende la extraña tesis según la cual “[p]arece necesario… entender al mundo como formado de conceptos”. Los filósofos han ofrecido distintas comprensiones de esta propuesta, en particular de lo que los conceptos mooreanos realmente son. En este artículo discuto y rechazo tres de ellas: una, según la cual los conceptos mooreanos son universales dentro del marco de una teoría del cúmulo sobre particulares concretos (Nelson, 1962; Baldwin, 1990); una segunda, según la cual los conceptos mooreanos son particulares dentro de un marco de análisis mereológico (Bell, 1999); y una tercera, según la cual los conceptos mooreanos son una categoría sui generis, resultante del supuesto rechazo de la distinción substancia (particular)/atributo (universal) (MacBride 2018).
    [Show full text]
  • A Choice of Illusions: Belief, Relativism, and Modern Literature
    A Choice of Illusions: Belief, Relativism, and Modern Literature Alastair Morrison Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences Columbia University 2015 © 2015 Alastair Morrison All rights reserved ABSTRACT A Choice of Illusions: Belief, Relativism, and Modern Literature Alastair Morrison This dissertation considers how defenses of traditional faith in Britain have adapted to new frontiers of cultural relativism and religious difference. Its contention is that poetry has become central to such defenses. Relativistic thinking would seem to dispose against metaphysical belief; poetry, as a parallel claimant for cultural and expressive particularity, and as a sensuously non-empirical rhetorical medium, offers a way of muffling the dissonance that might otherwise arise from positioning difference and particularity as pretext for claims of universal truth. This study traces formal and rhetorical innovations from the Victorian crisis of faith forward to literary modernism, with a brief conclusion contemplating related developments in more contemporary poetry and religious thought in Britain. Table of Contents Acknowledgements ii 1. Introduction: Belief, Relativism, and Modern Literature 1 i. works cited 11 2. Unction on the Tightrope: Religion as Culture in Victorian Britain 12 ii. works cited 60 3. T.E. Hulme: What Choice in Illusion? 63 iii. works cited 94 4. To Do the Right Thing for the Wrong Reason: The Justification of T.S. Eliot 96 iv. works cited 131 5. David Jones: Cultures in Parenthesis 134 v. works cited 164 6. Conclusion: Poetry and Postsecularism 166 vi. works cited 173 i Acknowledgements It is chastening to think how different this study might be were it not for the generous contributions others have made to it.
    [Show full text]
  • Abstract Entities Ted Sider August, 2001
    Bibliography on Abstract Entities Ted Sider August, 2001 Universals Some anthologies: Landesman, Charles, ed. 1971. The Problem of Universals. (New York: Basic Books). Loux, Michael J (Ed). Universals and Particulars: Readings in Ontology. University of Notre Dame, 1976. Mellor, D H (ed); Oliver, Alex (ed). “Properties”, Oxford Univ Pr : New York, 1997 This volume offers a selection of the most interesting and important readings on properties beginning with the work of Frege, Russell and Ramsey. In particular, it makes accessible for the first time contributions to the contemporary controversy about the nature and roles of properties: Do they differ from particulars? Are they universals, sets or tropes? How are properties involved with causation, laws and semantics? The editors' introduction guides the novice through these issues and critically discusses the readings. Van Inwagen, Peter, and Dean Zimmerman, eds. 1998. Metaphysics: The Big Questions. (Malden, MA: Blackwell). Van Iten, Richard J., ed. 1970. The Problem of Universals. (New York: Appleton Century Crofts). This has lots of good historical selections on the problem of universals, as well as selections through the middle part of the 20th century. Articles and Books: Agassi, Joseph; Sagal, Paul T. “The Problem of Universals”, Philosophical Studies. 1975; 28,289-294 The pair Democreteanism-platonism (nothing/something is outside space-time) differs from the pair nominalism-realism (universals are/are not nameable entities). Nominalism need not be Democretean, and Democreateanism is nominalist only if conceptualism is rejected. Putnam's critique of nominalism is thus invalid. Quine's theory is Democretean- when-possible: Quine is also a minimalist Platonist. Conceptualists and realists agree that universals exist but not as physical objects.
    [Show full text]
  • Trope Theory and the Metaphysics of Appearances
    AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL QUARTERLY Volume 41, Number 1, January 2004 TROPE THEORY AND THE METAPHYSICS OF APPEARANCES Uriah Kriegel 1. INTRODUCTION: TWO NOTIONS OF other-worldliness about them that makes APPEARANCE ontological commitment to them discon- certing. This other-worldliness is mani- In modern philosophy, the notion of ap- fested in the fact that appearances have no pearance is introduced in a broadly Kantian location in physical space, and exert no or idealist context. The theory of percep- causal powers over the physical world. tion is thought to require the postulation They are ghostly objects floating about in of a special set of objects which exist only the private mental spaces of the subject. “in the perceiver’s mind.” The argument There is also a more mundane and more goes something like this. When x perceives, innocuous notion of appearance. There is there is always some thing y such that y is a sense in which, when x looks at a white what x perceives. Yet it may happen that in wall, the white wall appears to x, or there reality y does not exist. If it does not exist appears to x to be a white wall. In this more in reality, y must exist elsewhere or other- mundane sense, to say that y appears to x wise—as an appearance. is simply to say that x perceives y. The logi- Traditionally, the appeal to this idealist cal relation between perception and ap- notion of appearance is motivated by con- pearance (in the mundane sense) is nothing sideration of cases of illusion.
    [Show full text]
  • Herbert Hochberg • Kevin Mulligan (Eds.) Relations and Predicates
    Herbert Hochberg • Kevin Mulligan (Eds.) Relations and Predicates P h i l o s o p h i s c h e A n a l y s e P h i l o s o p h i c a l A n a l y s i s Herausgegeben von / Edited by Herbert Hochberg • Rafael Hüntelmann • Christian Kanzian Richard Schantz • Erwin Tegtmeier Band 11 / Volume 11 Herbert Hochberg • Kevin Mulligan (Eds.) Relations and Predicates ontos verlag Frankfurt . Lancaster Bibliographic information published by Die Deutsche Bibliothek Die Deutsche Bibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data is available in the Internet at http://dnb.ddb.de North and South America by Transaction Books Rutgers University Piscataway, NJ 08854-8042 [email protected] United Kingdom, Ire Iceland, Turkey, Malta, Portugal by Gazelle Books Services Limited White Cross Mills Hightown LANCASTER, LA1 4XS [email protected] 2004 ontos verlag P.O. Box 15 41, D-63133 Heusenstamm www.ontosverlag.com ISBN 3-937202-51-X 2004 No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in retrieval systems or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming, recording or otherwise without written permission from the Publisher, with the exception of any material supplied specifically for the purpose of being entered and executed on a computer system, for exclusive use of the purchaser of the work Printed on acid-free paper ISO-Norm 970-6 Printed in Germany. Contents Introduction 7 Herbert Hochberg / Kevin Mulligan Absurd Claims 11 Lars Gustafsson Relations, Properties and Particulars 17 Herbert Hochberg (University of Texas at Austin, USA) Predication Theory: Classical vs Modern 55 Ignacio Angelelli (University of Texas at Austin, USA) Bareness, as in ‘“Bare” Particulars’: Its Ubiquity 81 Fred Wilson (University of Toronto, Canada) Objects as Hierarchical Structures: A Comprehensive Ontology 113 Donald W.
    [Show full text]
  • THE INDIVIDUATION of TROPES Jonathan Schaffer a Trope1 Is a Particular Property: the Redness of a Rose, the Roundness of The
    Australasian Journal of Philosophy Vol. 79, No. 2, pp. 247–257; June 2001 THE INDIVIDUATION OF TROPES Jonathan Schaffer A trope1 is a particular property: the redness of a rose, the roundness of the moon. It is generally supposed that tropes are individuated by primitive quantity: this redness, that roundness. I argue that the trope theorist is far better served by individuating tropes by spatiotemporal relation: here redness, there roundness. In short, tropes are not this-suches but here-suches. I generally favour an ontology, much like that of David Hume and very much like that of D. C. Williams, on which tropes are fundamental entities, and resemblance and spatiotemporal distance are fundamental relations, with properties analysed as resemblance classes of tropes, and objects analysed as compresent bundles of tropes. I do not argue for this ontology here except obliquely, by showing how the spatiotemporal individuation of tropes can overcome certain standard objections. In what follows I display the structure and rationale of trope theory, argue that the this- such conception of the trope is ill-suited to the rationale of the theory and independently objectionable, explain how the here-such conception is preferable, and conclude by considering objections. I. The Structure and Rationale of Trope Theory The trope theorist takes tropes to be fundamental entities. The redness of a rose is not to be analysed in terms of a universal redness inhering in a particular substance, or in terms of members of resemblance classes of concrete objects. What is the redness of a rose? Look. Thus one rationale for trope theory is the claim that tropes are the immediate objects of perception.
    [Show full text]